2 thoughts on “Thought Control in Scotland’s Indymedia?”
Brian StobieAugust 31, 2015 / 2:50 pm
I think it more likely that there are various non-thought control factors in play here, not least due to the fact that the indymedia and media sources you quote here are basically all rivals rather than comrades-in-arms, so unlikely to collude.
‘Wings’ is mostly a one-man band site (neglecting any nameless back-room persons helping out, of course), at least in the sense that most of the posts are from Rev. Stu. It tends to feature snappy, short articles sniping at media and political idiots. So (relatively) lengthy pieces referring to Chomsky may be a bit too high-brow for the tone of the site?.
Newsnet is closely associated with Derek Bateman, who as you note, is lukewarm to severe criticism of for example the BBC (unlike his readers, at least the ones who comment).They also have a media rottweiler like yourself, namely G.A. Ponsonby, who does a pretty good job. Perhaps they feel one is enough.
In the case of Bella, it just doesn’t seem to do much in the way of direct criticism of specific media articles, preferring instead general calls for new alternatives and support for new media.
I think newspapers in general won’t trumpet research that shows them in a bad light, for example comparisons to social media, they’re just in it for the money after all.
They’re just not interested. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong though….
Talking-up Scotland 
I think it more likely that there are various non-thought control factors in play here, not least due to the fact that the indymedia and media sources you quote here are basically all rivals rather than comrades-in-arms, so unlikely to collude.
‘Wings’ is mostly a one-man band site (neglecting any nameless back-room persons helping out, of course), at least in the sense that most of the posts are from Rev. Stu. It tends to feature snappy, short articles sniping at media and political idiots. So (relatively) lengthy pieces referring to Chomsky may be a bit too high-brow for the tone of the site?.
Newsnet is closely associated with Derek Bateman, who as you note, is lukewarm to severe criticism of for example the BBC (unlike his readers, at least the ones who comment).They also have a media rottweiler like yourself, namely G.A. Ponsonby, who does a pretty good job. Perhaps they feel one is enough.
In the case of Bella, it just doesn’t seem to do much in the way of direct criticism of specific media articles, preferring instead general calls for new alternatives and support for new media.
I think newspapers in general won’t trumpet research that shows them in a bad light, for example comparisons to social media, they’re just in it for the money after all.
They’re just not interested. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong though….
LikeLike
Thanks Brian
Fair and sane comments.
I may be losing it but then again that’s what ‘they’ want isn’t it, ISN’T IT!!!! HAHAHAHAHA………………….
Nurse!
LikeLike